Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10AEA8D9 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:37:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C23DE15F for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicja10 with SMTP id ja10so81943949wic.1 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:37:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=upbVjbFx9uSGO5VGhph2iu15CYDfTOohdBYk0kTy8Mk=; b=Jrtv+3Ay+rcqiraGRtPaEAahrLf5dcUMoTFmBDNDOUsQIQUNa9VhoWwwRgXDpHUgOX yFXcho6zzCKflVCCeWAfn8RhKvM4p+bCu6ct2Nm0SfIsexW81e5JcDnhv0gqndQG+82j IVoe65YeKuh5z5mKfvZlOl6LovAdLqlYZEEbKhxcTOUseh4UuT2oruRlvUBzzJLzoaR1 CSEAo4b8ftVwaOhyt4sulqyit5htHNowHdVs/yys10mK7i2VlQzpPhiIvHqgNgrqjom6 e86YKsWwc5d2NUSFYlKx/rLmeHLvwRNkUmI+3kuARcPiSyp8a4XLDgLtrrSzl16c6pcC vyCQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.219.41 with SMTP id pl9mr39516971wic.30.1439321821403; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:37:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.78.207 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:37:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8181630.GdAj0CPZYc@coldstorage> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:37:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: Michael Naber To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135fbc6e1e1b0051d0e39b3 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fees and the block-finding process X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:37:04 -0000 --001a1135fbc6e1e1b0051d0e39b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jorge, As long as Bitcoin remains the best global consensus network -- and part of being best means being reasonably priced -- then no I don't think people will be pushed into altcoins. Better money ultimately displaces worse money, so I don't see a driving force for people to move to other altcoins as long as Bitcoin remains competitive. Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition will deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in some other product / fork. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" wrote: > > > > Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus > network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware > of and agree upon every transaction. Constraining Bitcoin capacity below > the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a > global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, > such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not > meet requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, > because they are not global consensus networks, since all participating > nodes are not aware of all transactions. > > Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that will be what pushes > people to other altcoins, no? > Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is > hitting the limit and then fees rising as a consequence? > --001a1135fbc6e1e1b0051d0e39b3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jorge, As long as Bitcoin remains the best global consensu= s network -- and part of being best means being reasonably priced -- then n= o I don't think people will be pushed into altcoins. Better money ultim= ately displaces worse money, so I don't see a driving force for people = to move to other altcoins as long as Bitcoin remains competitive.
<= br>
Hitting the limit in and of itself is not necessarily a bad t= hing. The question at hand is whether we should constrain that limit below = what technology is capable of delivering. I'm arguing that not only we = should not, but that we could not even if we wanted to, since competition w= ill deliver capacity for global consensus whether it's in Bitcoin or in= some other product / fork.


On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Jorge= Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:


On Aug 11, 2015 8:46 PM, "Michael Naber" <mickeybob@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jorge: Many people would like to participate in a global consensus = network -- which is a network where all the participating nodes are aware o= f and agree upon every transaction.=C2=A0Constraining Bitcoin capacity belo= w the limits of technology will only push users seeking to participate in a= global consensus network to other solutions which have adequate capacity, = such as BitcoinXT or others. Note that lightning / hub and spoke do not mee= t requirements for users wishing to participate in global consensus, becaus= e they are not global consensus networks, since all participating nodes are= not aware of all transactions.=C2=A0

Even if you are right, first fees will raise and that= will be what pushes people to other altcoins, no?
Can we agree that the first step in any potentially bad situation is hittin= g the limit and then fees rising as a consequence?


--001a1135fbc6e1e1b0051d0e39b3--